The Magura Cave in North-Western Bulgaria: Exploring Visitation and Speleotourism Potential

Home , Magura Cave

Researches Reviews of the Department of Geography, Tourism and Hotel Management 49–2/2020 Original scientific article UDC: 551.435.84:338.483.11(497.2)

THE MAGURA CAVE IN NORTH-WESTERN BULGARIA: EXPLORING VISITATION AND SPELEOTOURISM POTENTIAL

Aleksandar AntićA Received: May 31, 2020 | Accepted: September 23, 2020 DOI: 10.5937/ZbDght2002163A

ABSTRACT: Speleotourism implies visiting caves and respecting geomorphological values. A visit to the caves must include certain rules of conduct and implementation of geoethical values to achieve sustainable speleotourism development. This paper investi- gates the tourist traffic of an authentic cave in northwestern Bulgaria, the Magura Cave, which is a speleological object with exceptional potential for the development of speleotourism. The explored cave includes unique examples of cave paintings and impos- ing historical values. The research methodology mainly included descriptive analysis of data obtained by the administrative staff of the Municipality of Belogradchik. The data of tourist visits are presented in tables and graphs. The research results indicate the current state and potential prospects for the development of speleotourism in the Magura Cave. Moreover, the paper presents measures for more effective development of speleotourism, which are of special importance for organizational and cave management structures. Keywords: Speleotourism, Magura Cave, tourist traffic, forecast.

INTRODUCTION

The search for new experiences has always been a trend among tourists (Vespestad et al., 2019; Rogerson, 2020; Pellešová, 2020). Visiting the natural environment and tourist affirmation of georesources is becoming increasingly important (Escorihuela and Dowling, 2015; Gordon, 2018; Rivero et al., 2019), especially in the field of speleotourism (Tičar et al., 2018; Tomić et al., 2019; Antić and Tomić 2019; Antić et al., 2019). Cave visitation includes exploration of inner caves and cave areas, studying a cave or its surroundings from geological, cultural, historical, archaeological, botanical and environmental educational viewpoints. Furthermore, enjoying recreational opportunities

A Department of Geography, Tourism and Hotel Management, Faculty of Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovića 3, 21000 Novi Sad, Serbia. Corresponding author: [email protected]

Researches Review DGTH | 49–2, 163–180 | 2020 163 in cave areas surrounded by limestone terrain and water valleys have proven to be a fa- vourable complementary aspect of speleotourism (Kim et al., 2008). In addition, speleological geoheritage sites can generate employment and new economic activities, especially in rural regions in need of new or additional sources of income (El Wartiti et al., 2009; Farsani et al., 2011). This is very important for underdeveloped areas in Southeast Europe, which lack significant investment projects and effective economic development (Uvalić, 2001). Geo- tourism and speleotourism can play a major role in economic revitalization in this region, as these types of tourism place a focus on the rich natural resources stationed in the area. Attracting (geo)tourists encompasses complex groups of tasks, but also a crucial necessity that is an indicator of development and prosperity (Ríos-Reyes et al., 2018; Köroğlu and Kandemir, 2019; Štrba et al., 2020; Vukoičić et al., 2020). Although speleotourism is not sufficiently developed, it is necessary to explore all factors that can reveal ways to make the most of speleotourism potentials in order to achieve socio-economic, sustainable and geoethical values. The study of tourist visits implies an important research endeavour, which has been the subject of many multidisciplinary explorations (Cahill et al., 2008; Wong and Zhao, 2016; Schliephack and Dickinson, 2017; Avgeli et al., 2019; Joo et al., 2019). The geoconservation aspect of caves and speleotourism must be a priority of management and organizational structures. For this reason, visits should be adjusted to the appropriate carrying capacity obtained by measuring the presence of carbon dioxide, air temperature and humidity, before, during and after tourist visits (Lobo, 2015). However, in the case of speleotourism research, tourist visitation has not been sufficiently explored. In this paper, the research focus is placed on the tourist traffic of the speleological object in northwestern Bulgaria, the Magura Cave. The main goal of the research is to analyze the number of visitors in this cave, and to determine possible guidelines for further speleotourism development. The primary research questions re- late to the current state and prospects of speleotourism development in Magura Cave: 1. To what extent has the current speleotourism been developed (current state of speleotourism)? 2. What measures should be taken in order to place this cave on a higher position of the regional tourist market (future perspectives of speleotourism)?

Also, the activities that should be implemented in the tourist offer of the cave were presented, so that the tourist would have a better experience and repeat the visit to this speleo-archaeological geosite.

STUDY AREA

Regionally, Magura Cave is located in the western part of the Balkan Mountains - a range which spans from the north-west to the central Bulgaria, the Thracian plain lying to the south-east of the range, and the plain in turn fringed by the Rhodope Mountain range at its western edge (Figure 1). The River Danube lies about 25 km to the north-east

164 Researches Review DGTH | 49–2, 163–180 | 2020 Figure 1. The plan and location of the Magura Cave Source: (Ivanova et al., 2016) of Magura, the Danube valley linking Central Europe and the Balkans with the Black sea coastal zone. Magura Cave is located on Rabisha Hill (461 m above sea level). It is 25 km north-west of the town of Belogradchik and 35 km south of the city of Vidin (Ivano- va et al., 2016). The proximity to the Serbian border enables this geosite to join the regional tourism development, and to enrich the geotourism and speleotourism offers of Bulgaria and Serbia (Carpathian-Balkan region). The first information about the cave appeared in the 1920s and 1930s in the pub- lications of Mikov (1927) and Filkov (1936/7). The first systematic archaeological -ex plorations in the cave were undertaken in 1961 in the entrance (“Triumphant”) hall, at around 20 m from the main entrance (Dzhambazov and Katincharov, 1961). The length of this hall is 120 m, width 58 m and the highest point on its ceiling is 28 m. Investiga- tions have revealed settlements in the cave dating back to the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age periods (Ivanova et al., 2016). Magura Cave is now open to the public (Figure 2), with a path descending and wind- ing through the “Triumphant” hall, a side gallery of which has been converted into a commercial winery. In the construction process, a large quantity of sediment was re- moved, but some bones (mainly from Ursus spelaeus s. lato) were taken for the collec- tion of the Vidin Museum. Among these, several human bones were also found, but are now known to be from the Bronze Age. The cave has become famous for its prehistoric drawings in the so-called “Painting Gallery”, located in a side branch off the main gallery around 300 m into the cave, which are established to be from the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages (fifth to third millenia BC). At its entrance there is an image of a galloping horse, very different to the Holocene drawings and the only drawing made with a mate-

Researches Review DGTH | 49–2, 163–180 | 2020 165 A

Figure 2. Magura Cave; (A) Pedestrian track in the Cave (Source: www.ilovebulgaria.eu/ en/magura-cave/); (B) Cave art (Source: www.easytouristguides.com/tour/tour-bulgaria- discover-north-western-bulgaria/); (C) Information Center of the Magura Cave (Source: www. ilovebulgaria.eu/en/magura-cave/)

166 Researches Review DGTH | 49–2, 163–180 | 2020 rial other than guano; it is in poor condition, but is considered to be Palaeolithic/Meso- lithic in style (Stoytchev, 1994; Ivanova et al., 2016).

METHODOLOGY

In the phase of defining the theoretical framework of the paper, a bibliographic-spec- ulative method was used, while the processing and interpretation of the results was done using the descriptive method. The main methodological approach is based on the analysis of tourist traffic data of Magura Cave, in the period from January 2012 to December 2019. Descriptive analysis also included the use of tables and graphs, in order to more effectively identify the similarities and differences of the data between the observed periods. Access to the data was provided by the administrative staff of the Municipality of Belogradchik.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The first observed period implies the year of 2012 (Table 1). In this period, the largest number of visitors to the Magura cave visited the cave at the very beginning of the summer season (4,517 visitors in April) and in August (5,348 visitors). With the exception of July (4,275 visitors), there were less than 4,000 visits in all other months. September can also be seen as an exception, because the cave was visited by 3,990 visitors at that time. In any case, this is a rather small number for an attractive tourist destination, such as Magura Cave. It should be noted that in all observed years, winter periods include the lowest number of visits. Also, there are significantly more domestic tourists than foreign tourists. This fact is most adequately reflected in the total number of domestic and foreign tourists. During 2012, the Magura Cave was visited by 27,340 domestic tourists and 2,492 foreign tourists. This large and significant difference did not change- un til 2019, which is a negative element in the speleotourism development of Magura Cave. That is why it is necessary to elaborate much more on marketing strategies and propa- ganda goals. The following year (Table 2), 1,323 fewer tourists visited the cave. Therefore, the work of the management structure in 2012 can be considered a failure, because not only the growth of tourist traffic was lacking, but the decline exceeded 1,000 visitors, which is not a positive outcome. The most advanced months for tourist traffic in Magura Cave are the same this year as in 2012. In April, the cave was visited by 4,947 visitors, and in August as many as 5,190. The trend that brings a large number of tourists at the beginning of the summer season continues, but also in August when a large number of peo- ple take vacations, due to ideal temperature conditions. Also, the big difference between domestic and foreign tourists continues. The total number of foreign tourists needs to be much higher and achieving this should be the main goal of the Magura Cave management team.

Researches Review DGTH | 49–2, 163–180 | 2020 167 Table 1. Visitors in the Magura Cave in 2012

Month/Year Domestic/Foreign tourists Amount of visitors Total Domestic 172 January 2012 206 Foreign 34 Domestic 30 February 2012. 31 Foreign 1 Domestic 410 March 2012 490 Foreign 80 Domestic 4,300 April 2012. 4,517 Foreign 217 Domestic 2,914 May 2012. 3,272 Foreign 358 Domestic 3,646 June 2012 3,972 Foreign 326 Domestic 3,888 July 2012 4,275 Foreign 387 Domestic 4,747 August 2012 5,348 Foreign 601 Domestic 3,778 September 2012 3,990 Foreign 212 Domestic 2,114 October 2012 2,304 Foreign 190 Domestic 1,098 November 2012 1,178 Foreign 80 Domestic 243 December 2012 249 Foreign 6 Domestic 27,340 Total 2012 29,832 Foreign 2,492

Table 2. Visitors in the Magura Cave in 2013

Month/Year Domestic/Foreign tourists Amount of visitors Total Domestic 98 January 2013 111 Foreign 13 Domestic 190 February 2013 258 Foreign 68 Domestic 738 March 2013 840 Foreign 102 Domestic 4,616 April 2013 4,947 Foreign 331

168 Researches Review DGTH | 49–2, 163–180 | 2020 Month/Year Domestic/Foreign tourists Amount of visitors Total Domestic 2,081 May 2013 2,308 Foreign 227 Domestic 2,952 June 2013 3,451 Foreign 499 Domestic 3,263 July 2013 3,723 Foreign 460 Domestic 4,600 August 2013 5,190 Foreign 590 Domestic 3,391 September 2013 3,724 Foreign 333 Domestic 1,998 October 2013 2,276 Foreign 278 Domestic 1,229 November 2013 1,357 Foreign 128 Domestic 302 December 2013 324 Foreign 22 Domestic 25,458 Total 2013 28,509 Foreign 3,051

In 2014, there was a significant decline in tourist traffic (Table 3). As many as 7,140 fewer tourists visited the cave compared to 2012 and 5,817 fewer tourists visited the cave compared to 2013. This example clearly shows the negative effect of all direct and indi- rect tourist factors that influence the speleotourism of Magura Cave. Although the decline is much higher compared to the decline from the previous year, in August 2014, the cave was visited by 4,813 tourists. This can be taken as a positive result compared to all other months in this year. Certainly, in 2014, the speleotouristic significance of the cave further decreased. In the next year, the tourist traffic of Magura Cave is improving (Table 4). In 2015, the cave was visited by more tourists compared to the previous two years, but not compared to 2012. This growth of tourist traffic is a positive sign, which gives hope for the future development of speleotourism, but not the certainty that there will be uncondi- tional business success. A lot of effort and significant business ventures need to be -un dertaken in order for the cave to be visited by a significantly larger number of tourists. Table 4 clearly indicates that August and September are the months in which the largest number of tourists visited the cave. In September, the cave was visited by as many as 6,848 tourists, which is the largest number of visitors since the beginning of the observed period.

Researches Review DGTH | 49–2, 163–180 | 2020 169 Table 3. Visitors in the Magura Cave in 2014

Month/Year Domestic/Foreign tourists Amount of visitors Total Domestic 169 January 2014 183 Foreign 14 Domestic 203 February 2014 231 Foreign 28 Domestic 928 March 2014 1,073 Foreign 145 Domestic 1,929 April 2014 2,365 Foreign 436 Domestic 1,981 May 2014 2,418 Foreign 437 Domestic 2,953 June 2014 3,333 Foreign 380 Domestic 3,157 July 2014 3,619 Foreign 462 Domestic 4,089 August 2014 4,813 Foreign 724 Domestic 2,205 September 2014 2,483 Foreign 278 Domestic 1,221 October 2014 1,362 Foreign 141 Domestic 541 November 2014 663 Foreign 122 Domestic 141 December 2014 149 Foreign 8 Domestic 19,517 Total 2014 22,692 Foreign 3,175

After 2015, the number of visits to Magura Cave rises to over 30,000 visits. This is a positive outcome that has partial business results, as the cave management offer has been modernized since this year. A souvenir shop and a restaurant have been opened and the access to the geosite has been additionally arranged. All these parameters rep- resent minimal effort, which show certain results. However, progress is still low and the potential of the cave is not reaching its maximum. Moreover, the number of foreign tourists decreased significantly compared to the previous year. August and Septem- ber are still the periods in which the largest number of visits prevails, while the winter months are in constant stagnation of tourist traffic. The rising trend of tourist traffic partially continues in 2017. The total number of tourists is lower than the previous year by 227 visitors. April, August and September are

170 Researches Review DGTH | 49–2, 163–180 | 2020 again the months with the highest number of foreign and domestic visits, while only in January, February and December, the cave is visited by less than 1,000 tourists.

Table 4. Visitors in the Magura Cave in 2015

Month/Year Domestic/Foreign tourists Amount of visitors Total Domestic 124 January 2015 130 Foreign 6 Domestic 159 February 2015 241 Foreign 82 Domestic 718 March 2015 821 Foreign 103 Domestic 1,836 April 2015 1,972 Foreign 136 Domestic 3,157 May 2015 3,519 Foreign 362 Domestic 3,017 June 2015 3,452 Foreign 435 Domestic 2,807 July 2015 3,337 Foreign 530 Domestic 5,213 August 2015 5,991 Foreign 778 Domestic 4,024 September 2015 6,848 Foreign 2,824 Domestic 1,584 October 2015 1,688 Foreign 104 Domestic 948 November 2015 1,055 Foreign 107 Domestic 308 December 2015 335 Foreign 27 Domestic 23,895 Total 2015 29,389 Foreign 5,494

Table 5. Visitors in the Magura Cave in 2016

Month/Year Domestic/Foreign tourists Amount of visitors Total Domestic 120 January 2016 131 Foreign 11 Domestic 304 February 2016 351 Foreign 47

Researches Review DGTH | 49–2, 163–180 | 2020 171 Month/Year Domestic/Foreign tourists Amount of visitors Total Domestic 1,014 March 2016 1,089 Foreign 75 Domestic 3,227 April 2016 3,429 Foreign 202 Domestic 3,914 May 2016 4,229 Foreign 315 Domestic 3,139 June 2016 3,447 Foreign 308 Domestic 3,826 July 2016 4,464 Foreign 638 Domestic 5,245 August 2016 5,888 Foreign 643 Domestic 5,139 September 2016 5,518 Foreign 379 Domestic 2,118 October 2016 2,335 Foreign 217 Domestic 530 November 2016 616 Foreign 86 Domestic 327 December 2016 378 Foreign 51 Domestic 28,903 Total 2016 31,875 Foreign 2,972

Marketing team needs to improve the strategies and business approaches, due to the constant decrease of foreign tourist visitations.

Table 6. Visitors in the Magura Cave in 2017

Month/Year Domestic/Foreign tourists Amount of visitors Total Domestic 41 January 2017 62 Foreign 21 Domestic 171 February 2017 181 Foreign 10 Domestic 1,305 March 2017 1,472 Foreign 167 Domestic 3,603 April 2017 4,225 Foreign 622 Domestic 2,939 May 2017 3,196 Foreign 257

172 Researches Review DGTH | 49–2, 163–180 | 2020 Month/Year Domestic/Foreign tourists Amount of visitors Total Domestic 3,224 June 2017 3,739 Foreign 515 Domestic 3,251 July 2017 3,807 Foreign 556 Domestic 5,180 August 2017 5,953 Foreign 773 Domestic 4,781 September 2017 5,388 Foreign 607 Domestic 1,850 October 2017 2,063 Foreign 213 Domestic 929 November 2017 1,055 Foreign 126 Domestic 459 December 2017 507 Foreign 48 Domestic 27,733 Total 2017 31,648 Foreign 3,915

Table 7. Visitors in the Magura Cave in 2018

Month/Year Domestic/Foreign tourists Amount of visitors Total Domestic 224 January 2018 239 Foreign 15 Domestic 341 February 2018 396 Foreign 55 Domestic 659 March 2018 853 Foreign 194 Domestic 3,047 April 2018 3,896 Foreign 849 Domestic 4,273 May 2018 5,189 Foreign 916 Domestic 3,610 June 2018 4,320 Foreign 710 Domestic 4,419 July 2018 5,233 Foreign 814 Domestic 6,006 August 2018 6,975 Foreign 969 Domestic 4,935 September 2018 5,489 Foreign 554

Researches Review DGTH | 49–2, 163–180 | 2020 173 Month/Year Domestic/Foreign tourists Amount of visitors Total Domestic 2,110 October 2018 2,451 Foreign 341 Domestic 1,278 November 2018 1,402 Foreign 124 Domestic 384 December 2018 433 Foreign 49 Domestic 31,286 Total 2018 36,876 Foreign 5,590

In 2018, the cave was visited by the largest number of tourists (36,876). This growth does not refer to a significant increase in tourist traffic. The cave was visited by 5,228 more tourists compared to the previous year, but given the level of attractiveness, especially speleo-archaeological complementarities of the geosite, the number of visits should exceed 50,000 visits in order for the work of management and organizational structures of Magura Cave to be considered a significant success. All significant european show caves include more then 50,000 visits per year and the Magure cave should be included in that group (Cigna and Burri, 2000; Cigna, 2016; Cigna, 2019). Although the difference between the number of foreign and domestic tourists is large, in 2018 there was a modest growth of foreign tourists visitation, which can be taken into account when developing strategic plans for speleotourism development. The summer months are continuously dominated by the number of tourist visits. August is the month when by far the largest number of tourists visit the cave. Thus, it is necessary to organize a certain event program in that month, which can attract even more potential tourists. The last observed year includes similar number of visits as previous years (Table 8). However, the number of foreign tourists has decreased, which further confirms the lack of a quality marketing program, that can more effectively influence the attraction of foreign tourists. The month of August is still the only period when the number of visits exceeds 6,000, so it can be concluded that there is an evident business opportunity to use this for the promotion of speleotourism program. The last two observed years include data on tourist traffic that exceeds 36,000 visits, which is a success, but not to the extent that is sufficient for significant speleotouristic development.

Table 8. Visitors in the Magura Cave in 2019

Month/Year Domestic/Foreign tourists Amount of visitors Total Domestic 119 January 2019 184 Foreign 65 Domestic 244 February 2019 278 Foreign 34

174 Researches Review DGTH | 49–2, 163–180 | 2020 Month/Year Domestic/Foreign tourists Amount of visitors Total Domestic 1,595 March 2019 1,977 Foreign 382 Domestic 4,102 April 2019 4,627 Foreign 525 Domestic 4,561 May 2019 5,085 Foreign 524 Domestic 4,043 June 2019 4,614 Foreign 571 Domestic 3,542 July 2019 4,300 Foreign 758 Domestic 5,130 August 2019 6,046 Foreign 916 Domestic 4,367 September 2019 5,012 Foreign 645 Domestic 2,309 October 2019 2,696 Foreign 387 Domestic 1,009 November 2019 1,118 Foreign 109 Domestic 479 December 2019 519 Foreign 40 Domestic 31,500 Total 2019 36,456 Foreign 4,956

As shown in Figure 3. the highest total number of visits in Magura Cave occured in 2018, while the lowest number of visits occured in 2014. The highest number of foreign visits to the Magure Cave occured also in 2018, while the lowest number occured in 2012. Moreover, the highest number of domestic visits occured in 2019 and the lowest number in 2014. Therefore, the general conclusion from the main data is that 2018 and 2019 were the years with the most success, while the year 2014 represents the most ineffective period for the visitation numbers. The minimal efforts of arranging the speleotouristic area gave Magura cave a certain type of development that cannot be considered completely satisfactory, because the focus has not been established on the foreign market, ie attracting foreign tourists. The sustainability of the geosite relies exclusively on domestic tourists. This is one of the factors that needs to be revised by making an adequate balance between domestic and foreign tourist visits, without large differences in the visitation numbers. This is a difficult task, but certainly feasible and necessary. Also, creating an event program in the month of August, when the largest number of tourists visit the cave would provide an opportunity to attract many potential tourists. The marketing program must be improved, the cave website should be modernized and complementary sites should be promoted more efficiently.

Researches Review DGTH | 49–2, 163–180 | 2020 175 40000 36876 36456

35000 31875 31648 29832 29389 30000 28509 31286 31500 28903 25000 27340 22692 27733 25458 23895 20000 19517 15000

10000 5494 5590 4956 3915 5000 2492 3051 3175 2972

0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Domestic Foreign Total

Figure 3. Domestic, foreign and total number of visitors (2012–2019)

Moreover, turning tourist potentials into sustainable and economically viable tourist values should be the primary goal of the cave management structures. With the implementation of the following business plans, the cave management can improve the speleotourism development of the Magura Cave: • Modernization of the Cave Website (implement photo and video galleries, creating virtual tours and enabling online ticket purchase); • Creating quality marketing strategies and improving social media promotion; • Organizing quality event program to attract more tourists; • Set conditions for intersectoral connection of all organizations that can influence the growth of speleotourism; • Organizing conferences, congresses and other types of business travel, and offer a visit to the cave as a complementary activity; • Аttracting potential investors; • Using the proximity of the border with Serbia and Romania, and attract Serbian and Romanian tourists. • Share experience with other cave management structures in the region.

These measures should enable faster and more efficient development of speleotourism, which could be an indicator of local economic growth. Prerequisites for the implementation of these measures should be a well-organized management structure that could adequately present ideas to potential investors and local authorities. After the suc- cessful presentation, the realization of the project follows, where it is necessary to hire experts from various scientific fields, researchers, educators and volunteers. It is necessary to involve all stakeholders, as well as the local community in decision-making pro- cesses. With this approach, it is possible to achieve a much higher quality speleotourism product and thus modernize and improve speleotourism in this area.

176 Researches Review DGTH | 49–2, 163–180 | 2020 Considering that karst areas are particularly fragile (van Beynen, 2011), appropriate karst management should be applied. Due to the negative impacts that tourists can have on caves, intentional or unintentional, the management must act in a meaningful and organized manner for the preservation of the cave’s geomorphological values. Further- more, all existing tourist resort developments should be encouraged to reduce the environmental impact of their operation and to upgrade the quality of accommodation and visitor services offered (Hamilton-Smith, 1998). In the case of Magura Cave, the management needs to continue developing speleotourism according to sustainable concepts and geoethical values. Given the relatively low number of visits, it is not necessary to take urgent measures to protect the cave and limit visitations. However, it is necessary to spread awareness and educate visitors about the rules of conduct inside the cave, as well as to invest in adequate security systems that will protect this geosite.

CONCLUSION

The analysis of the tourist traffic of Magura Cave in northwestern Bulgaria provided an insight into the current state and possible perspectives of the future speleotourism development. The theoretical framework of the paper indicates the importance of speleological geoheritage, as a crucial resource not only for speleotourism, but for geotourism as well. Therefore, it is necessary to carefully consider the ways of karst management and tourism development, taking into account sustainable and geoethical values. The data on the tourist traffic of the Magura Cave indicate an underdeveloped speleotourism geosite which has exceptional potentials for development. It can be said that this cave belongs to the level of recognition in the tourist market, but it does not have a competitive identity. The data of tourist visits clearly show that the tourism of Magura cave is strictly seasonal, which is expected, taking into account the natural environment of the site itself. Management needs to work on creative ideas on how to extend the tourist season. The results of the research present measures for the sustainable development of speleotourism and the attraction of foreign tourists, which are extremely important for the management of the cave. Also, it is very important that travel agencies and other interest groups place greater focus on the receptive tourism model, thus promote and enhance the development of speleotourism in this area.

Researches Review DGTH | 49–2, 163–180 | 2020 177 REFERENCES

Antić, A., & Tomić, N. (2019). Assessing the speleotourism potential together with archaeological and palaeontological heritage in Risovača cave (central Serbia). Acta Ge- oturistica, 10, 1, 1-11. Antić, A., Tomić, N., & Marković, S. (2019). Karst geoheritage and geotourism potential in the Pek River lower basin (Eastern Serbia). Geographica Pannonica, 23, 1, 32-46. Avgeli, V., Soteriades, M., Sakoualou, A., & Fortune, N. (2019). Wine Tourism in San- torini, Crete: Exploring the Behaviour, Motives, and Intentions of Wine Tourists. Journal of Tourism and Hospitality Management, 7, 2, 45-60. Cahill, K. L., Marion, J. L., & Lawson, S. R. (2008). Exploring visitor acceptability for hardening trails to sustain visitation and minimise impacts. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 16, 2, 232-245. Cigna, A. A., & Burri, E. (2000). Development, management and economy of show caves. International Journal of Speleology, 29, 1, 1. Cigna, A. A. (2016). Tourism and show caves. Zeitschrift für Geomorphologie, Supple- mentary Issues, 60, 2, 217-233. Cigna, A. A. (2019). Show caves. In Encyclopedia of caves (pp. 909-921). Academic Press. Dzhambazov, N., Katincharov, R., 1961. Archaeological finds from Magura cave. Archae- ology III 3, 56e64 (in Bulgarian). Escorihuela, J., & Dowling, R. K. (2015). Analysis of the geotouristic activity in the geo- logic park of Aliaga, Spain: Progress, threats and challenges for the future. Geoherit- age, 7, 3, 299-306. El Wartiti M, Malaki A, Zahraoui M, Di Gregorio F, De Waele J. 2009. Geosites and tour- istic development of the north-western Tabular Middle Atlas of Morocco. In Proceed- ings of Desertification and Risk Analysis Using High and Medium Resolution Satel- lite Data, Marini A (ed.). Springer Netherlands: Toze ur Tunesia; 143–159. Farsani, N. T., Coelho, C., & Costa, C. (2011). Geotourism and geoparks as novel strategies for socio-economic development in rural areas. International Journal of Tour- ism Research, 13, 1, 68-81. Filkov, L., 1936/7. Burial in Magura Cave. Nature and Science VII (4), 57e58 (in Bulgar- ian). Gordon, J. E. (2018). Geoheritage, geotourism and the cultural landscape: Enhancing the visitor experience and promoting geoconservation. Geosciences, 8, 4, 136. Hamilton-Smith, E., Kiernan, K., & Spate, A. (1998). Karst management considerations for the Cape Range karst province, Western Australia. A report prepared for the De- partment of Environmental Protection. Ivanova, S., Gurova, M., Spassov, N., Hristova, L., Tzankov, N., Popov, V., ... & Lewis, M. (2016). Magura Cave, Bulgaria: a multidisciplinary study of Late Pleistocene human palaeoenvironment in the Balkans. Quaternary International, 415, 86-108. Joo, D., Cho, H., & Woosnam, K. M. (2019). Exploring tourists’ perceptions of tourism impacts. Tourism Management Perspectives, 31, 231-235.

178 Researches Review DGTH | 49–2, 163–180 | 2020 Köroğlu, F., & Kandemir, R. (2019). Vulnerable Geosites of Çayırbağı-Çalköy (Düzköy- Trabzon) in the Eastern Black Sea Region of NE Turkey and Their Geotourism Poten- tial. Geoheritage, 11, 3, 1101-1111. Kim, S. S., Kim, M., Park, J., & Guo, Y. (2008). Cave tourism: Tourists’ characteristics, motivations to visit, and the segmentation of their behavior. Asia Pacific Journal of Tourism Research, 13, 3, 299-318. Lobo, H. A. S. (2015). Tourist carrying capacity of Santana cave (PETAR-SP, Brazil): a new method based on a critical atmospheric parameter. Tourism Management Per- spectives, 16, 67-75. Mikov, V., 1927. Magura Cave. In: Bulgarian Tourist, vol. IX, pp. 9e12 (in Bulgarian). Pellešová, P. (2020). Globalization and perception of tourism trends by supply and de- mand. In SHS Web of Conferences (Vol. 74, p. 04019). EDP Sciences. Rogerson, C. M. (2020). In Search of Inclusive Tourism in South Africa: Some Lessons from the International Experience. In New Directions in South African Tourism Ge- ographies (pp. 147-165). Springer, Cham. Rivero, M. S., Rangel, M. C. R., & Martín, J. M. S. (2019). Geotourist Profile Identifica- tion Using Binary Logit Modeling: Application to the Villuercas-Ibores-Jara Geop- ark (Spain). Geoheritage, 11, 4, 1399-1412. Ríos-Reyes, C. A., Chaparro, J. E. G., Ruiz, J. I. H., Otero, D. Z., Rangel, D. S. B., & Car- reño, J. C. D. (2018). Geotouristic potential in karst systems of santander Colombia the begining of right geoducational and geoconservational practices. International Journal of Hydrology, 2, 2. Schliephack, J., & Dickinson, J. E. (2017). Tourists’ representations of coastal managed realignment as a climate change adaptation strategy. Tourism Management, 59, 182- 192. Stoytchev, T., 1994. Horse Painting from Magoura Cave. In: Bulgaria Annual of Depart- ment of Archaeology - NBU, vol. I (Sofia). Tičar, J., Tomić, N., Valjavec, M. B., Zorn, M., Marković, S. B., & Gavrilov, M. B. (2018). Speleotourism in Slovenia: balancing between mass tourism and geoheritage protection. Open Geosciences, 10, 1, 344-357. Tomić, N., Antić, A., Marković, S. B., Đorđević, T., Zorn, M., & Valjavec, M. B. (2019). Exploring the Potential for Speleotourism Development in Eastern Serbia. Geoherit- age, 11, 2, 359-369. Uvalić, M. (2001). Regional cooperation in Southeast Europe. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 1, 1, 55-75. van Beynen, P. E. (Ed.). (2011). Karst management. Springer Science & Business Media. Vespestad, M. K., Lindberg, F., & Mossberg, L. (2019). Value in tourist experiences: How nature-based experiential styles influence value in climbing. Tourist Studies, 19, 4, 453-474. Vukoičić, D., Ivanović, R., Radovanović, D., Dragojlović, J., Martić-Bursać, N., Ivanović, M., & Ristić, D. (2020). Assessment of Geotourism Values and Ecological Status of Mines in Kopaonik Mountain (Serbia). Minerals, 10, 3, 269.

Researches Review DGTH | 49–2, 163–180 | 2020 179 Wong, I. A., & Zhao, W. M. (2016). Exploring the effect of geographic convenience on repeat visitation and tourist spending: The moderating role of novelty seeking. Current Issues in Tourism, 19, 8, 824-844. Štrba, Ľ., Kolačkovská, J., Kudelas, D., Kršák, B., & Sidor, C. (2020). Geoheritage and Geotourism Contribution to Tourism Development in Protected Areas of Slovakia— Theoretical Considerations. Sustainability, 12, 7, 2979.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, -au thorship, and/or publication of this article. © 2020 by the author. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://cre- ativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

180 Researches Review DGTH | 49–2, 163–180 | 2020